Naval Architect Not Qualified to Render Opinions as to Automotive Products The United States District Court, Western District of Washington, August 10, 2018

WASHINGTON — The United States District Court, Western District of Washington addressed several expert challenges including the motion of the defendant Ford (Ford) to exclude Dr. Charles Cushing’s statements regarding the plaintiffs’ likely exposure to asbestos during automotive work. For a brief case background, this case centers around allegations that decedent developed mesothelioma, and ultimately passed away from the disease, due to occupational exposure to asbestos from work as a machinist in the Navy and in the Naval reserve from 1954-1962; as a machinist and…
Continue reading...

Failure to Timely Submit Supplemental Expert Report Leads to Denial of Motion for Leave Superior Court of Delaware, August 8, 2018

DELAWARE — The plaintiff moved for leave to submit a supplemental expert report after a change in substantive Ohio law. The court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of four defendants. Specifically, the defendants argued that summary judgment was proper based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in Schwartz which found theories advanced on cumulative exposure as invalid to establish substantial factor causation. In the instant matter, The plaintiffs submitted an expert report from Dr. Ginsberg 8 months prior to the deadline imposed…
Continue reading...

Denial of Worker’s Compensation Claim by employee of Scotts Miracle Grow Upheld on Appeal. Court of Appeals, Third District, Union County, July 30, 2018

OHIO — The plaintiff James Bennett filed a worker’s compensation claim for his development of “pleural plaque” disease he attributed to asbestos exposure while working for Scotts Miracle Grow (Scotts). Bennett began receiving benefits for his claim but then filed for additional payments for his recent “asbestosis” diagnosis. The hearing officer denied his claim for asbestosis finding that the plaintiff had not established the disease process. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the parties did not dispute that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos. Rather,…
Continue reading...

Talc Defendant Strikes Plaintiff’s Expert and Avoids Spoliation Sanctions United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina, June 8, 2018

NORTH CAROLINA — The plaintiff Ann Finch’s decedent Franklin Finch worked at a Firestone tire factory in Wilson, North Carolina from 1975-1995 and alleged that he was exposed to asbestos during his time there, causing his mesothelioma. Among other allegations of exposure, the plaintiff alleged that the decedent was exposed to talc-contaminated asbestos at Firestone, allegedly supplied by defendant Pfizer and others. In support of this allegation, the plaintiff offered an expert report from Sean Fitzgerald, who tested an identification badge worn by Decedent, and…
Continue reading...

Post-Trial Motions Denied Against Both Plaintiff and Defendant on Damages and Judgment as a Matter of Law United States District Court, W.D. Washington, June 4, 2018

WASHINGTON – The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants including Scapa Dryer Fabrics (Scapa) alleging her husband, Mr. Barabin, developed mesothelioma as a result of his work at Crown-Zellerbach paper mill in Camas, Washington. Mr. Barabin worked as a spare hand, which included working directly on the paper machines at the mill. Part of his work including using high pressure hoses to blow dust out of the dryers. Suit was brought against the defendants on theories of product liability design, failure to warn, and negligence.…
Continue reading...

Frustrated Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Exclusion of Kenneth Garza Due to Lack of Authority U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, May 2, 2018

WISCONSIN — In this case set for trial on June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed eleven motions under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and various motions in limine. After hearing and argument, the court granted defendant Pabst Brewing Company’s motion to bar, under Daubert, Kenneth Garza’s reports, opinions, and testimony, and granted the Daubert motion of defendants Sprinkmann, Employers Insurance Company and WEPCO’s to exclude Garza’s testimony. The court found that although Garza’s training and background gave him the…
Continue reading...

Insufficient Evidence to Show Chrysotile Flooring Products Caused Plaintiff’s Peritoneal Mesothelioma Supreme Court, State of New York, Nassau County, April 18, 2018

NEW YORK — The court granted summary judgment for two flooring manufacturers in this peritoneal bystander mesothelioma matter. Plaintiff Victoria Pistone alleged that she was exposed to asbestos from vinyl floor covering manufactured by Mannington Mills, and tile manufactured by American Biltrite, while she accompanied her father to work, and in their home from his clothing. The court cited prior New York law in noting that a plaintiff must use a causation expert to establish that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of asbestos…
Continue reading...

Expert’s Asbestos-Location Map Admissible Only For Plaintiffs With Exposures Within Entire Date Range Depicted by Map Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, April 24, 2018

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS — Defendant Hess Oil Virgin Island Corporation (HOVIC) filed a motion in limine to exclude a map prepared by the plaintiffs’ expert Martin D. Barrie, Ph.D. in this matter that consolidates the lawsuits of 123 individuals alleging expose to asbestos while working at a HOVIC operated refinery on the island of St. Croix. The map in question condensed 23 pages of data produced in discovery by HOVIC, and depicted all places that asbestos was found at the St. Croix refinery based on…
Continue reading...

Proposed Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert, Dr. Arnold Brody, Precluded as Being Cumulative U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, March 30, 2018

WASHINGTON — In this case, the plaintiff had already presented testimony from occupational and environmental medicine physician, Dr. Carl Brodkin, on the impacts of asbestos on the body. The plaintiff then was looking to call Dr. Arnold Brody to also provide expert opinion on this subject. The defendant objected, arguing that both experts testimony is substantially similar and should be precluded as cumulative. The court agreed. In its decision, the court outlined the proffered testimony of Dr. Brody and stated that his testimony would have…
Continue reading...

Valve Manufacturer’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Granted Based on Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Expert Witness U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, March 29, 2018

SOUTH CAROLINA — In this mesothelioma case, the plaintiff, James Chesher, sued alleging asbestos exposure while serving as a machinist mate and commissioned officer in the Navy from 1965 to 1989. Defendant Crane had moved for and was denied summary judgment. However, Crane’s motion to preclude the plaintiff’s causation expert, Dr. Carlos Bedrossian, was granted. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the preclusion of his expert and Crane moved to renew its motion for summary judgment. The parties agreed that maritime law applied. The court…
Continue reading...